RedSoviet

Petition for RedSoviet to change his name. I dont know, it just bugs me, for one his name is in Blue! And hes a conservative. So maybe like BlueConservative.

LOL @ BlueConservative

But we can't force him to change his name. That's up to him really.

just kenzu this fool kicked me out of the left wing party, im conservative and republican but not right wing

blame kenzu!

actually i see im no bakc in the left party so must have been a mistake or some other shit

Actually I'm the one who took you out of the authoritarian left-wing party and I explained you why in MSN, and I'll explain it again here:

Republican Conservatism, aside from being an ambiguous political stance for which I don't see any meaningful or at least clear etymologic foundations, is nonetheless very clear in regards to something: preserving the status quo, something even Authoritarian Leftists oppose.

Now, within the context of World Republic, the conservative republican party was conceived in order to represent American Style republicanism which favours a lesser intervention of the state in public affairs to the extent of reducing the state as nothing but an enforcer of property rights. That's what republicanism within our forum stands for. This is entirely opposed to authoritarian left as they support a strong state that literally coordinates economy in order to better favour the collective.

So, you explain how Authoritarian Leftism can go hand in hand with conservative republicanism or choose your political stance.

then its you fool, like i said i don't stand for every point for that radical lefts stand for same with the conservatism and im sure not american im radical anti-american, so i must be in both partys to be close to the point of my view

so put me back inthe left party or you a a cock sucker bratan

RedSoviet wrote:

then its you fool, like i said i don't stand for every point for that radical lefts stand for same with the conservatism

Then you're neither so explain what you are.

RedSoviet wrote:

and im sure not american im radical anti-american,

No one said you were.

RedSoviet wrote:

so i must be in both partys to be close to the point of my view

Yet they're opposed parties so you can't be in both.

RS wrote:

so put me back inthe left party or you a a cock sucker bratan

Explain why it makes sense to be in two opposite parties, specially when you've already claimed your ideology not to belong to either, and I won't oppose you being in both.

Maybe youd fit more in Authoritarian Right?

Liche wrote:

Maybe youd fit more in Authoritarian Right?

how if im left

Quote :

Then you're neither so explain what you are.

what do you wannt from me? to write everything that im stand for and everything that i don't stand for? im sure will not do this, this would be a job of hours if not days

im left, a socialist, a conservative socialist and a nationalist, im a anti- racialist and im for a very social welfare state etc.

Quote :

Yet they're opposed parties so you can't be in both.

no, if im in both party then im close to my point of view

Quote :

Explain why it makes sense to be in two opposite parties, specially when you've already claimed your ideology not to belong to either, and I won't oppose you being in both.

i have strong point of view that are in both of this partys, its nothing opposing, conservatism and socialism don't oppose each otherm its just the a conservativ-socialism

better when this party which is actually inactive will be changed to just the conservativ party, then everybody who is conservativ can join it no matter in which party he is, ther are even conservative liberalist which are jsut conservative in some point and libiral in other, conservatisem don't oppose anything ther can be conservative nazis till anarchists

RedSoviet wrote:

how if im left

Then you're not a conservative republican.

RedSoviet wrote:

what do you wannt from me? to write everything that im stand for and everything that i don't stand for? im sure will not do this, this would be a job of hours if not days

Wow, so complex? You must believe yourself to be quite a superior man for seemingly you believe yourself with the right to dictate the lives of millions at many levels. Otherwise, it wouldn't be that complex... or is it that you have a very complex economic and political proposal? (Not even the NBP, the party that seems closer to what you've expressed would have taken a single day to write all its political premises... actually I doubt it took more than 5 hours).

RedSoviet wrote:

im left, a socialist,

So you believe that workers should control the economy and the state should be abolished? Wait I guess within this very same parragraph I'll find the reply.

RedSoviet wrote:

a conservative socialist

How can a socialist be conservative? Just by delimiting very well the meaning of the word "conservative" to fit simply "cultural traditionalism". If you believe workers should be in control of society, in other words, society should be in control of itself, supposing you're a socialist, and you're a "conservative", then you'd be for the creation of a conservative socialist community where all socialist conservatives ruled. But te following parts of this parragraph make me doubt you actually do...

RedSoviet wrote:

and a nationalist,

Aha, you're a nationalist. So you're a socialist, a conservative and a nationalist. You'll disagree with whoever that doesn't fit your conception of what is good for your nation and if they're found within your nation you'll definitely be in favor of their suppression or at least expulsion, that's for sure. They'll be workers though and in socialism there's no state so... who will be the ones to suppress them? Nationalist Conservative Socialists? Like them making groups who will go to war with whoever is not fitting with their nation? Of course, you'd be eliminating some of the principles of socialism - the elimination of classes and thus the coercion of one over another. You'd be creating a dominating and coercive class that would compose a state withinin a delimited territory (nation) which would have a mechanism to enforce its rules over all the inhabitants of said territory.

In other words, you are not socialist if that's what you believe and which has been noticeable from what you speak (for example, your opposition to fags. Surely you wouldn't like any fags within beloved Russia so you'd like them controlled. Isn't it so?)

RedSoviet wrote:

im a anti-racialist

At least. I hope you don't change your mind in regard to this.

RedSoviet wrote:

and im for a very social welfare state etc.

There you go. You're not a socialist, otherwise you'd oppose the state. And you're not a conservative in its full extent for a conservative advocates to keep the current economic and statist framework while you propose the state to have a different use.

RedSoviet wrote:

no, if im in both party then im close to my point of view

Which means you belong to neither. You belong to a 3rd party which combines the elements of those. But let's see what the problem is all about:

RedSoviet wrote:

i have strong point of view that are in both of this partys, its nothing opposing, conservatism and socialism don't oppose each otherm its just the a conservativ-socialism

Conservative Republican is a place for those that fit with conservatism in its full extent - economical, political, social and cultural. Not only wit traditionalism.

So far the only "conservative" thing about you is cultural traditionalism, nothing else. Guess who else had that? Stalin and he had nothing to do with the silly US reps, which is what Conreps are about.

So you're just a traditionalist authoritarian leftist, nothing more.

RedSoviet wrote:

better when this party which is actually inactive will be changed to just the conservativ party, then everybody who is conservativ can join it no matter in which party he is, ther are even conservative liberalist which are jsut conservative in some point and libiral in other, conservatisem don't oppose anything ther can be conservative nazis till anarchists

Conservative, in a political context, goes beyond cultural-traditionalist, which is what you advocate for. It refers to keeping the political and economic systems.

And what is worse, people like you that believe culture should be preserved through coercion and imposition tend to choose their cultural background from any period of time and try to impose it. A good example is the Nationalist Orthodox Panslavists mainly from Russia and Serbia who take Slavic traditionalism to the extreme of retaking slavic medieval and pre-medieval traditions like forced polygamy and nearly communal ownership over women - in other words, such a society rejects monogamous couples and favours polygamy and groupal sex. It is a totally different concept of tarditionalism to the one you, many Russian or western "conservatives" may have. Yet they're "conservative" in the sense that they want to preserve slavic culture as they conceive it. Else they believe just the religious traditions of the Orthodox church are acceptable so they do shun millions of Slavs who have embraced catholic religious tradition. Else, they want to preserve "Slavia" as pure as possible getting it rid from all non-slavs. they have an entire cultural and politic framework they want to preserve, making them conservative.

As you see, a completely different manifestation of conservatism from yours, yet, conservatism. A conservatism that clashes entirely with US's or Western Europe's conservatism, but conservatism nonetheless.

So far you seem to be nothing but an authoritarian leftist, the "conservative" tag having no relevance whatsoever as per what was explained above.

So define why you believe there should be a "conservatives' den" even though concepts of conservatism can differ to even dramaticly opposing sides and when "conservatism" per say doesn't mean something other than "preserving"?

I like it, redundant though it may be.

Lemme see if I can calm everybody down here.

So you're saying that you're culturally Conservative - like a traditionalist or something - but you're economically Socialist? Is that the general idea here?

By the way, what kind of political model do you have in mind? Small government, no government, strong government?

As an aside, I have a question about this quote:

RedSoviet wrote:

im for a very social welfare state etc.

Can you tell me a little bit about what kind of welfare you're talking about here? Like, how will people be deemed needing of welfare in your type of system, and how will it be appropriated?

All of that stated, I think that you're a victim of semantics in this thread. I think I understand - just from the context of your posts - what you mean when you say that you're a "Conservative Socialist." But hardlined adherents to traditional Socialism - and I include myself and guys like ZK, who's giving you a bit of a grilling right now, and perhaps rightfully so - might have reservations to calling yourself both a Conservative and a Socialist. I say this because Conservatism has tended to focus on one important thing: the preservation of the status quo, or the preservation of the old order, of the past, of traditional values, and other such things. Socialism, quite on the contrary, is all about progress, revolutionary ideas, opposing the old way of doing things. For this reason alone, I think you should probably think of a different way to describe your views.

This would have to start either with ditching the word Conservative or ditching the word Socialist. Sorry dude, I just truly don't think that the two ideas - taken to mean what they really do mean - can coincide. It just can't be done.

EDIT: I finally just took a chance to read ZK's wall o' text post. He said what I said, but he said it much better than me, so just ignore this and read his post instead.

i must admid that i don't readed what you wrote, just a bit the conservativ part, and thats bullshit, everybody that have a ideology can be conservative to, not 100% maybe not even 30% but in some points, and its ok the russian communist party i "orthodox" marxist-leninist 2 things that actually not can't be together + ther russian nationalists so again

so i offer a cahnge of this party in just a conservative party

RedSoviet wrote:

i must admid that i don't readed what you wrote,

Obviously yet you think you can reply...

RedSoviet wrote:

just a bit the conservativ part, and thats bullshit,

Aha, as usual with you - baseless disqualification and disregard for arguements. (See the above admission of tl;dr)

RedSoviet wrote:

everybody that have a ideology can be conservative to, not 100% maybe not even 30% but in some points,

Like 30 grams of conservativeness and 40 grams of libertarianism and 30 grams of socialism?

Sorry but political ideologies, socioeconomic platforms and concepts are not recipes.

There is a definition of "conservatism" whether you know it or not (and you should because it's alreay been explained to you by more than one person) and whether you like it or not. And moreover in a political context it's even more contradictory with what you propose.

It's pretty much like the debate we had with Kenzu and other pseudosocialists that argued that an economy could be 30% socialist and 70% capitalist when both are mutually exclusive.

Politically, either you're a conservative or not, that is, either you believe the status quo, this economic system, the current class division, the current moral values (as ambiguous and arbitrarily irrational as this may be), the current cultural traits, the current political framework should be preserved or not.

Politically, to be a conservative, it's not enough to find homosexuals disgusting, it's not enough to believe in the "institution of marriage", it's not enough to believe in monogamy, it's not enough to condemn zoophilia, it's not enough to believe there should be a state, it's not enough to be against the usage of drugs, it's not enough to support x or y religion, it's not enough to be against abortion, it's not enough with being authoritarian.... it goes beyond that.

"Conservative" is often used colloquially to refer to more or less traditionalist people who, at least partially, disagree with many practices that are relative to their chronological and/or merely cultural framework (and this can be at a very subjective level), new, unusual or go against traditional presets or values. In this regard, yes, some people tend to be more "conservative" than others pretty much in accordance to their social context and their personal values.

However, this conception is merely colloquial let alone subjective and ambiguous. Here we use "conservative" in its political conception.

RedSoviet wrote:

and its ok the russian communist party i "orthodox" marxist-leninist 2 things that actually not can't be together + ther russian nationalists so again

This didn't make sense.

RedSoviet wrote:

so i offer a cahnge of this party in just a conservative party

What about you understanding first what "conservative" means to its full extent?

you just don't understand that ideologys cahnge and meld together so a new one originates that consists from others, and iknow exactly what conservatisem means

so what you said is just "your" thoughts so fuck that then i don't care about your thoughts

Quote :

This didn't make sense.

they are marxist-leninist and beliving orthodox, but religion and communism special marxisem is atheistic so anti-religion, marx said cleary what he things of religion, so things that actually can't be together... but ther are, the ideology have changed and a new one is ther

thats what i saying all the time, a idealogy can change and be a mixed ones and refine itself

RedSoviet wrote:

you just don't understand that ideologys cahnge and meld together so a new one originates that consists from others, and iknow exactly what conservatisem means

Ehm... no, specially when they defy definitions and etymology.

Conservatism has an etymology from which you can understand what it means. It's been explained to you what it does according to its etymology, if you're going to disregard that then you're just being stubborn and using your personal language, not english.

RedSovietian: "Conservatism"
English: "Traditionalism".

There you go. The site's in English though, not RedSovietian so we keep the english defintion for "conservatism".

RedSoviet wrote:

so what you said is just "your" thoughts so fuck that then i don't care about your thoughts

Nope, it's not my thoughts but the definition of those words. If you don't agree go and protest, and while you do put a complaint against the creation of language, etymology and consensus.

RedSoviet wrote:

they are marxist-leninist and beliving orthodox, but religion and communism special marxisem is atheistic so anti-religion, marx said cleary what he things of religion, so things that actually can't be together... but ther are, the ideology have changed and a new one is ther

Wow. Just wow.

1) Marxism-leninism is a pragmatic contradiction. You can call yourself Reagano-Maoist or Franco-Guevarist, or Male-woman or Noyes. That doesn't mean it makes sense.
2) The KPRF follows no religious doctrine but apparently they're religiously tolerant. Whatever the case, this is moot as they're not communist and
3) Communism and religion are not mutually exclusive unless the doctrine preached by a certain religion opposes the principles of communism, but this is in particular cases rather than a general rule.
4) Marxism is not a religion and Karl Marx is not its prophet. A marxist is not Marxist because he blindly follows whatever that Marx wrote or thought, a Marxist is not a "Marx's wannabe". A Marxist is a person who agrees with all or most of Marx's sociopolitical analyses and proposals, not someone that quotes him in prayers. Also his quote "religion is the opiate of the masses" is more often than not taken out of context and not undestood properly. What Marxism attacks in those regards is not religion itself but the smokescreen that often is product of religious or supranatural beliefs that do not allow people to assess things from a historircally materialist point of view, in other words, when religion serves as a means to keep people dormant and unaware, hoping that with prayers and chants everything will be fine and when it serves as a means to justify submission to a church or any authority that bases itself on it. When things are assessed religiously instead of scientifically and when the roots of material conditions and its consequences are sought in abstract, unassesable and impossible to understand phenomena. But if a certain religion doesn't serve in this way, if it doesn't oppose historical materialism, then it doesn't conflict with Marxism.

New ideology? Nope, just the same recipe with less pepper and a bit more salt.

RedSoviet wrote:

thats what i saying all the time, a idealogy can change and be a mixed ones and refine itself

Fascism without Fascism is not fascism. Capitalism without capital is not capitalism. Dictatorship without a dictator is not dictatorship. Woman without vagina and female endocryn system is not woman.

If you have an ideology and change essential premises of it then you create another ideology - not a combination of two ideologies, not a revised ideology but a new ideology. And if it is contradictory it becomes fallacious and if fallacious false and if false untrue. If based on false premises it is also false. And if false it is irrelevant and inapplicable.

There are definitions for words and words refer to real things, stick to them or speak in another language in which case still you have to make a translation.

(sorry but) A man with no sexual organs is still a man.
(sorry to go off topic just putting that out there).

My point being a female with out female organs is still a female.

Quote :

Ehm... no, specially when they defy definitions and etymology.

Conservatism has an etymology from which you can understand what it means. It's been explained to you what it does according to its etymology, if you're going to disregard that then you're just being stubborn and using your personal language, not english.

RedSovietian: "Conservatism"
English: "Traditionalism".

There you go. The site's in English though, not RedSovietian so we keep the english defintion for "conservatism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

so cut that shit out

KPRF is Orthodox and not just "tolerant" to it, Zyuganov said it, and they describe themself as marxist too so what is it?

Quote :

Fascism without Fascism is not fascism. Capitalism without capital is not capitalism. Dictatorship without a dictator is not dictatorship. Woman without vagina and female endocryn system is not woman.

fascism without fascism hahaha never hered such shit befor



fascism is a big mix of many things fascism is = "nationalism, authoritarianism, third position, single party state dictatorship, social darwinism, social interventionism, indoctrination, anti-intellectualism, eugenics, heroism, militarism, economic interventionism"

and that all things makes fascism to fascism, so the question is, is fascism lets say without "eugenic" or maybe without "heroism" not more fascism?

and yeah i have a new ideology, (i ever said somthing else??) but this ideology is a "combination" of other ones, and its left wing... many socialistic party for example say that ther are green/environmentalistic and what are thay with that not more socialistic? becouse they have some other ideology/philosophy in it?

RedSoviet wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

so cut that shit out

Apparently you don't only skip my posts - also your own sources:

wikipedian wrote:

Conservatism is a political and social term from the Latin verb conservare meaning to save or preserve.

This is how it starts and this is something I have told you more than 5 times both in private and here in public.

Let's continue:

The following part, which covers the development of western conservatism is too long to quote so I'll just quote main points and adress them:

wikipedian wrote:

emphasizing moderation in the political balancing of interests towards the goals of social harmony and common good.

What does this tell you? Well, for an instance and as you'd notice had you read on Conservatism, it is entirely opposed to revolutionary and/or drastic change favouring organic, institutional and gradual changes. This also talks about the conciliatory nature of conservatism, that is, even though it develops within a framework of exploitation, it seeks for a conciliation between the exploited and the exploiter promoting thus the acceptance of the circumstances, that is of exploitation. The common good tadbit is nothing but plain rethoric of the kind that any demagogue will use to beautify the speech.

wikipedian wrote:

conservatism has no ideology, in the sense of a utopian program, with some form of master plan. Burke developed his ideas in response to the enlightened idea of a society guided by abstract reason.

This is an euphemism to say that, to a great extent, conservatism is not based on reason and actually seeks to oppose it... I wonder the implications of lack of reason... How could reason itself not be abstract is an interesting question.

wikipedian wrote:

Western Conservatism has also been influenced by the Counter-Enlightenment works of Joseph de Maistre. Maistre argued for the restoration of hereditary monarchy, which he regarded as a divinely sanctioned institution, and for the indirect authority of the Pope over temporal matters. He also defended the principle of hierarchical authority, which the Revolution sought to destroy.

Oh, but just look at the roots of conservatism... it is blatant and cynical retrograde thinking with no basis on reason whatsoever... Anti-Enlightment huh? I guess they did an awesome job - we're living in the 2nd and hopefully last Dark Ages.

So we see conservatives promote the idea of ruling classes and preferably avoid reason. Conservatism, to a good extent at this point is pretty much a fancy way to say in one word "if shitting in diapers worked for the first years of your life, it should work always". But of course it's not limited to that... let's go on:

The next part is "Different forms of conservatism". Sure if it says "Conservatism+adjective" or "adjective+conservatism" or "Conservative+noun" it should mean Conservatism has a terribly wide array of applications... Sorry but no.

Before going into detail I'll summarize. There are these political options according to your source:

Liberal conservatism, conservative liberalism, libertarian conservatism and fiscal conservatism, ah, and the more ludicrous green conservatism.

All of the above are entirely right-wing policies based entirely on capitalism and the preservation of the status quo just with different levels of statism, from small to nearly non-existant government.

Then we get cultural conservatism (which is to a great extent what your cocern seems to be as the only traes of conservatism in your political views are found within it) and religious conservatism to which no one is alien in this forum, specially those having to face creationists.

So well lets deconstruct all this:

Liberal Conservatism:

wikipedian wrote:

Liberal conservatism is a variant of conservatism that combines conservative values and policies with liberal stances. As these latter two terms have had different meanings over time and across countries, liberal conservatism also has a wide variety of meanings.

Which is basically what I told you - conservatism tends to be relative sometimes nearly subjective. But of course we'll see in the following statements within which framework:

wikipedian wrote:

Historically, the term often referred to the combination of economic liberalism, which champions laissez-faire markets, with the classical conservatism concern for established tradition, respect for authority and religious values. It contrasted itself with classical liberalism, which supported freedom for the individual in both the economic and social spheres.

Over time, the general conservative ideology in many countries adopted economic liberal arguments, and the term liberal conservatism was replaced with conservatism. This is also the case in countries where liberal economic ideas have been the tradition, such as the United States, and are thus considered conservative.

In other words conservatism is nothing but the same recipe as liberalism just with the addition of traditional values which...

wikipedian wrote:

In other countries where liberal conservative movements have entered the political mainstream, such as Italy and Spain, the terms liberal and conservative may be synonymous.

In some places are regarded as the same thing because they follow identical socio-economic frameworks.

And lets see yet a more interesting thing:

wikipedian wrote:

A secondary meaning for the term liberal conservatism that has developed in Europe is a combination of more modern conservative (less traditionalist) views with those of social liberalism. This has developed as an opposition to the more collectivist views of socialism. Often this involves stressing what are now conservative views of free-market economics and belief in individual responsibility, with social liberal views on defence of civil rights, environmentalism and support for a limited welfare state. This philosophy is that of Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt. In continental Europe, this is sometimes also translated into English as social conservatism.

Oh, conservatism again relates to keeping the capitalist status quo with a limited as possible government and as, this time adding a limited welfare state. And, as usual, conservatism is again employed as a reaction against revolution. Of course they have to keep the tradition and in order to do so they've been even gradually phsing out [u]traditionalism[/b] from the conservative philosophic core... why? Because that is becoming less and less popular as time goes by so [b]what they tend to preserve ends up as nothing but the tradition of "all individuals are responsible for their actions which means everything is fair. State should be small. Vive la Bourgeoisie"[b], that is, preserving the tradition of exploitation with state as a small referee that 1) guarantees exploitation will be achieved by protecting property rights and 2) protecting those property rights as the "national interest" of the immediate workers and bourgeoisie that state stems from.

Conservative Liberalism (oh really?)

wikipedian wrote:

Conservative liberalism is a variant of liberalism that combines liberal values and policies with conservative stances, or, more simply, the right wing of the liberal movement.

In other words, the same shit as above just with less conservatism, tis represented by the author without any clarity.

wikipedian wrote:

Until the two World Wars, in most European countries the political class was formed by conservative liberals, from Germany to Italy.

And then...

wikipedian wrote:

Conservative liberalism is a more positive and less radical version of classical liberalism.

No shit... more "positive" and less "radical". Positive refering to "positive liberty" which is, in general terms, "the capability of the individual to attain certain ends" as opposed to "negative liberty" which is the capability of "not being coerced into not attaining those ends".

How such a conceptualization is relevant within a socio-economic framework where the implications of both are mutual and determined unilateraly by a state and the bourgeoisie is an enigma... well not so much, they like these fancy terms to shed soem make-up over the implication of these societal organization schemes.

And less "radical" as "less extreme" I suppose, since they could not possibly be less "based on the roots" as they never target them and are actually entire philosophies conceived to divert attention from the roots of the status quo...

In other words this comment is just basicly the self conception of the proponents of this theory which, by the way, demonstrates nothing as it doesn't make them more or less conservative.

And then we have this:

wikipedian wrote:

The events such as World War I occurring after 1917 brought the more radical version of classical liberalism to a more conservative (i.e. more moderate) type of liberalism.

Aha, in other words this school of thought decided it had been "too liberal" as revolutions sprouted across Europe, in other words they became more conservative...

And when were they less conservative? Good question considering they always stood up for the same kind of system and its premises and its preservation.

Seemingly fancy words make their day.

And now we go to a delicious one:

Libertarian Conservatism. My, my.

At this point to some the very same concept should come as an oxymoron itself... let's see what the wonderful world of Libertarian Conservatism has awaiting for us:

wikipedian wrote:

Libertarian conservatism describes certain political ideologies within the United States and Canada which combines libertarian economic issues with aspects of conservatism. Its five main branches are Constitutionalism, paleolibertarianism, neolibertarianism, small government conservatism and Christian libertarianism. They generally differ from paleoconservatives, in that they are in favor of more personal and economic freedom

So they want to perseve something while fundamentaly changing it, ah? We'll see how these guys are nothing but guys that just want the same as any other conservative but just have the opinion that the sole existance of a state is wrong (it would be fun to see how these guys believe capitalism could work without it... wait, not fun, actually pretty scary)

wikipedian wrote:

libertarian conservatives support strict laissez-faire policies such as free trade, opposition to the Federal Reserve and opposition to business regulations. They are vehemently opposed to environmental regulations, corporate welfare, subsidies, and other areas of economic intervention.

Yup. They don't like state intervention except when, like any conservative would, it boils down to enforce property rights. They're nothing but the extreme side of the individualistic and capitalistic characteristics of conservatism and just call themselves libertarian because 1) it's damn fancy and helps providing their ideology with an euphemistic mantle ad 2) they believe that libertarianism exists so long as the state nearly doesn't intervent, ruling class? Private-law enforcement? That's libertarian!

In other words, no, they're not libertarian - just conservative euphemistic extremists.

wikipedian wrote:

However, many of them oppose abortion, as they see it as a positive liberty and violates the non-aggression principle because abortion is aggression towards the fetus.

How this is relevant is an interesting question as this is a debate held within every single model of political organization that allows for the acknowledgement of the fetus as a human individual. Who will enforce abortion-prevention? Guess who. that's right, the state. Libertarian? I don't think so.

So far how are we going? Oh yeah, conservatism, so far, as per your source is nothing but the preservation of the economic, social and political status quo which only fluctuates on intensity and relevance given to traditional values. We already see a schism between traditionalism and conservatism which will just further deepen within your own source.

Fiscal conservatism

wikipedian wrote:

Fiscal conservatism is the economic philosophy of prudence in government spending and debt.

Seems like this is the opposite of the SovietUSSR's model of budget management.

Ah no, it means:

wikipedian wrote:

...t is to the property of the citizen, and not to the demands of the creditor of the state, that the first and original faith of civil society is pledged. The claim of the citizen is prior in time, paramount in title, superior in equity. The fortunes of individuals, whether possessed by acquisition or by descent or in virtue of a participation in the goods of some community, were no part of the creditor's security, expressed or implied...[T]he public, whether represented by a monarch or by a senate, can pledge nothing but the public estate; and it can have no public estate except in what it derives from a just and proportioned imposition upon the citizens at large.

In other words, a government does not have the right to run up large debts and then throw the burden on the taxpayer; the taxpayers' right not to be taxed oppressively takes precedence even over paying back debts a government may have imprudently undertaken.

In other words, an entirely moot point to our discussion for two reasons: one, it is just redundant in regards to what has been presented before - the preservation of capitalism. And two... see the bailout programmes for the current (self-fucking-induced as always) crisis!


Then the almost as irrelevat Green Conservatives:

Green conservatism

Defined simply as:

wikipedian wrote:

Green conservatism is a term used to refer to conservatives who have incorporated green concerns into their ideology.

In other words, conservatives that have finally realized that after all we are indeed products of the nature and so we should be concerned about it but that still have a long way pending to understand how we influence it and how their doctrine is intrinsicly negative to it... in other words "environmentaly guilty conscious" conservatives.

And now comes what is more of our concern:

Cultural Conservatism:

wikipedian wrote:

Cultural conservatism is a philosophy that supports preservation of the heritage of a nation or culture. The culture in question may be as large as Western culture or Chinese civilization or as small as that of Tibet. Cultural conservatives try to adapt norms handed down from the past. The norms may be romantic, like the anti-metric movement that demands the retention of avoirdupois weights and measures in Britain and opposes their replacement with the metric system. They may be institutional: in the West this has included chivalry and feudalism, as well as capitalism, laicité and the rule of law.

In the subset social conservatism, the norms may also be what is viewed as a question of morality. In some cultures, practices such as homosexuality are seen as immoral. In others, it is considered immoral for a woman to reveal too much of her body.

Cultural conservatives often argue that old institutions have adapted to a particular place or culture and therefore ought to be preserved. Others argue that a people have a right to their cultural norms, their own language and traditions.

To this, and to no other part of the broader concept of "conservatism" is that your entire conservative identity belongs to. So far you have presented no sign of "conservatism" but this, that is, cultural conservatism.

At this point it should be pretty clear to you that this is the most relative and subjective concept of conservatism but that also forms a very small part of Conservatism itself to the point that it is a trait being phased out from major schools conservatism as a philosophic stance as it results non-pragmatic, inconvenient and even opposite to the rest of the conservative stances, that is, socio-economic. And this is something that had been explained to you before.

Also, it can be summarized as traditionalism as it focuses on the part of traditional moral, cultural and national values.

And the article reads on

Religious Conservatism.

Since you're an atheist and the cultural traits of religioon are assessed above, this part is entirely moot for our discussion.

The article follows with an assesment of the conservative parties of different countries all of which fall within one category of what was expressed above, that is, all are for the preservation of the capitalist economic and political framework and stad up, in a very mediocre way, for certain moral, cultural and traditional values at will.


In other words... your source is nothing but confirming my position in a bit more of detail. I suggest that if you want to use a source to demonstrate the rightfulness of your asseertion you better check, prior to referencing to it, whether it supports or not your claims.

RedSoviet wrote:

KPRF is Orthodox and not just "tolerant" to it, Zyuganov said it, and they describe themself as marxist too so what is it?

Quite funny because at least their site is plagued with secularism and, as remnants of USSR, I wouldn't expect otherwise. USSR was well known for its rejection of religion thanks to which most Russians are not religious sheep.

And I meant "tolerant to religion and or religious diversity", in other words, secularism.

Also, now that we're into allegorics: the KPRF anthem is L' Internationale an anthem full with anti-religious messages. Orthodox? I don't think so.

And they may desceribe themselves as marxist, taht doesn't mean they actually are Marxist. Many transvestites call themselves women so you better don't follow this logic when hooking up girls, otherwise you may end up getting a blow job from a woman, or should I say "self proclaimed woman"?

RedSoviet wrote:

fascism without fascism hahaha never hered such shit befor

He he, not familiar with the concept of sarcasm or over-siplification are you?

RedSoviet wrote:

fascism is a big mix of many things fascism is = "nationalism, authoritarianism, third position, single party state dictatorship, social darwinism, social interventionism, indoctrination, anti-intellectualism, eugenics, heroism, militarism, economic interventionism"

Oh this will be tasty:

Nationalism - Intrinsic to a much wider array of political systems.
Authoritarianism - The basis of any state and law-based system. which is... 99% of the world?
Third position:

wikipedian wrote:

Third Position is a nationalist political strand that emphasises its opposition to both communism and capitalism. Advocates of third position views present themselves as neither left nor right.

In other words, a strongly flawed attempt at being original. All fascisms have had bourgeoisie and most fascist systems have emerged as a violent reaction of the bourgeoisie to colllctivist doctrines in order to gain more active and militant protection of their property rights from part of the military. When the military stops being liked by the bourgeoisie, they manage to coordinate people into not feeding the fascist government, making it collapse so the facto, as in any place where they exist, the bourgeoisie and the state are interdependant.

So "third possition" is nothing but a nonsensical claim which is moot.

Single party state dictatorship - not exclusive to what you're refering to. Many systems not traditionally conceived as fascisms have one party state dictatorships, from USSR and China to the USA's subtle bicephalic Hydra.

Social Darwinism - essential to any doctrine that wants to give some "scientific" or "reasonable" foundation to class divisons and the existance of ruling classes. It 's also awesome to rid oneself off class-guilt. This is a half assed justification for exploitation and poverty, nothing else.

Indoctrination - This is intrinsic to any system based on class division and statism. You don't want people revolting do you?

Anti-Intellectualism - Intrinsic to any system that opposes reasoning. this goes hand in hand with indoctrination and control.

Eugenics - No. No "purely-fascist" movement has been intrinsicly eugenesist and those that have embraced it, namely Mussolini's Italy, has been for their allegiance to Eugenesist nations like Nazi Germany.

Heroism - Intrinsic to so many things.... definitely not part of fascism's fascisticity and much less de-facto specially when you look at what defacto has been the amazing cowardice of fascist rulers... all flee from defeat. So, nope, I don't think so.

Militarism - Any state needs a military to enforce itself domestcly and abroad. It is also a requirement for any community that needs to defend itself. Militarism is merely a culture around the military which may develop anywhere where you may find a military force.

Economic Interventionism - Sure, they need economy to serve their interests. Like any congruent form of statism.

According to your definition the only fascist system to exist would have been Nazi Germany's and that with some nice make up. If we suppress what is not only intrinsic to fascism according to yorself, most political systems are actually fascist.

RedSoviet wrote:

and that all things makes fascism to fascism, so the question is, is fascism lets say without "eugenic" or maybe without "heroism" not more fascism?

You're talking about the fascisticity of fascism, it's essence. If we go back to the above, or even better, to the historical development of fascism, fascism is nothing but a nationalistic and militarized state over a capitalist society. Where's the fascisticity of fascism? In it's lack of subtlety in regards to the authority and presence of the state within a capitalist society. In other words... in fascism itself as fascism is just different from traditional nationalist capitalisms in the prominence and authority of the state. And no fascism that bites the hand that feeds it has lasted so any other interpretation of fascism is de-facto moot and belongs to an impossible idealization. Blatantly authoritative capitalist state.

No wonder why many soviet citizens at the end claimed "death to red fascism"...

RedSoviet wrote:

and yeah i have a new ideology, (i ever said somthing else??)

Yes you did say something else - that your ideology is a combination of mutually exclusive, opposite elements.

RedSoviet wrote:

but this ideology is a "combination" of other ones, and its left wing...

So far you expressed that your view is a combination of Authoritarian Leftism with Conservatism, understanding conservatism just from a cultural perspective, that is, disregarding by far land large most of conservatism's characteristics.

As I said, you denote to be nothing but a Culturally Conservative (or traditionalist) Authoritarian Leftist. Not a conservative and authoritarian leftist as you've claimed for this, in the broad sense of what "conservative" and "conservatism" stand for, just in the cultural sense.

Since your "conservativeness" implies disregarding most of the conservative political philosophy yoiu don't qualify as a conservative.

RedSoviet wrote:

many socialistic party for example say that ther are green/environmentalistic and what are thay with that not more socialistic?

Aside from the fact that many "socialist" parties are not socialist, "green socialism" is just the emphatization on something that is absolutely intrinsic to socialism

Socialism is based on historical and dialectical materialism, that means socialists understand the implications of nature in humanity's development and actions and the implications of humanity's actions and development on nature. Knowing these fundamental logic premises, socialists acknowledge the relevance of the preservation of nature if even just for the favourability of material conditions.

Also, environmentalism, per se, is not a political ideology. It's just concern for the environment. And often this passive or misguidely active concern does absolutely nothing to achieve its ends so it's pretty much a political and philosophical nullity, execpt for ecoterrorism which is for sociopathic wackos.

RedSoviet wrote:

becouse they have some other ideology/philosophy in it?

Not only, as it is said above is environmentalism not an ideology or philosophy but merely a concern towards teh environment, maybe an entire culture and philosophy derived from this concern but nothing more than that. Either way, greenism is not mutually exclusive with say socialism while it is de-facto mutually exclusive with pragmatic capitalism which is why we contend some systems or proposals are osymoronic or nonsensical at best.

Tags don't make it all, self-proclamations neither - it is the aglomeration of intrinsic characteristics of philosophical stands, their essence, and their relation to reality and the eymology of concepts what makes them be in reality what they are claimed to be, whether they fit the concepts they're proclaimed to fit, whether they make sense or not, whether they fit reality or not.

It's not enough with claiming to be something - it has to intrinsicly be that something.

Two mutually exclusive things cannot be part of the same thing unless you refer to the agglomaretion of everything.

Check whether the components of your ideology are mutually exclusive or not and then come up with it. If you have a [i]third position then explain how it is so.

At this moment, your thesis that Conservatism and Authoritarian Leftism go hand in hand or can be combined has been refuted entirely and now with support from your own sources... so would you like to explain how could you possibly believe that your doctrine is a blend of these two mutually exclusive systems? Or in its defect, could you explain what your "so complex" political platform consists of?

So far, what you unvailed makes you nothing but an Authoritarian Leftist that believes in Cultural preservation. Is there anything else within your ideology that could potentialy be mutually exclusive with Authoritarian Leftism or that according to yourself is not found within Authoritarian Leftism but makes your doctrine still be left?

I bet you won't read this. Just don't forget this is a rebutal to your premises and dodging it won't invalidate it.

Also, Liche, you missed my point.

after i read it all, yes i did ^^ i see i can make it short

Quote :

As I said, you denote to be nothing but a Culturally Conservative (or traditionalist) Authoritarian Leftist.

yes i am

to fascism its stays allready everything clear, so why trying to discribe it self by your own words and give a stationary thing a self-touch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Core_tenets

and again to KPRF i saw self a interview with zyuganov were he self said that he is a beliving orthodox christian like the party, they even wannted to saint stalin, that was a big headline till here in germany

RedSoviet wrote:

after i read it all, yes i did ^^ i see i can make it short

Quote :

As I said, you denote to be nothing but a Culturally Conservative (or traditionalist) Authoritarian Leftist.

yes i am

End of discussion then. So I propose the following:

Either you join the Authoritarian Left party and denote your culturally conservative stance or we can propose a union of Left Wing Cultural Conservatists (and I say left wing because, for example, in the case of right-wing cultural conservatists they believe capitalism is a cultural trait that should be preserved) which creation I would support and of which creation would depend on what the people in the site think. And yet you could still be in the AL party just you'd have a place to discuss cultural conservation from an authoritarian left-wing perspective. I personally believe in and support cultural conservation without coercion through the development of what I call "Theory of National Cultures, Supracultures and Subcultures", a writting I'm working on in which I conciliate National identity with subcultures and with libertarian socialism.

RedSoviet wrote:

to fascism its stays allready everything clear, so why trying to discribe it self by your own words and give a stationary thing a self-touch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Core_tenets

You were the one to begin with the discussion about it I just described what defacto Fascism had stood for. Plus that discussion was irrelevant as it came from a misunderstood oversimplified joke.

RedSoviet wrote:

and again to KPRF i saw self a interview with zyuganov were he self said that he is a beliving orthodox christian like the party, they even wannted to saint stalin, that was a big headline till here in germany

*sanctify Stalin.

Sounds funny as much as not likely. For starters, they're heir to the CPSU, as heir to it they have to be intrinsically Secular in their political program. As secularists they nonetheless can be tolerant politiocally towards religious belief meaning that its members can believe what they want and they won't impose any religion as part of their political programme.

Given the religious composition of Russia, it would be understandable that a fair ammount of the members of the KPRF are orthodox christians, but, without the slightest doubt secular and moderate orthodox christians, but also it is surely composed by a good ammount of just moderate general theists and muslims.

Else, if you check within the premises of the KPRF, they do not speak about Orthodox Christianism. Maybe Zyuganov wanted to do the next: score some points with the Orthodox community of Russia and make the idea that religious suppression is part of their program fade away pointing to a more religiously-tolerant "Communist" party than USSR's was.

Quote :

union of Left Wing Cultural Conservatists

sounds good

RedSoviet wrote:

sounds good

Then, what lets make the proposal and see if it passes.